skydemon_api_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the call is read-only, that it has no side effects, or whether authentication is required (relevant given the sibling login/logout tools). For a zero-param info call that is low-risk, but the description still omits the behavioral facts an agent would want.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the key noun phrase front-loaded and no filler or repetition. Nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial zero-argument info tool with no output schema, the description names the two things returned (API base and client identity), which is roughly what an agent needs. Only the auth precondition is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter meaning to convey; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to invoke it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb ('Show') and a concrete resource ('SkyDemon API base + client identity'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from the session/flightplan/auth siblings. 'Client identity used by this wrapper' is slightly vague but understandable as the credential/client context this wrapper uses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance at all: it does not say whether this is a diagnostic/debugging call, whether it requires a prior login, or why an agent would pick it over skydemon_session_status. Usage is only inferable from the name and sibling context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.